Universal Basic Income, Andrew Yang candidate

[Debp]

Thoughts on this?   $1,000 a month to all adult Americans.   Of course, I am voting for an entire platform (so voting President Trump).   But I find UBI rather interesting. 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/08/19/andrew-yang-on-google-amazon-helping-pay-for-his-ubi-plan.html

[Omegaman 3.0]

As long as universal basic income is paid for by people or entities which voluntarily give to that cause, fine. If this were a government program paid for by taxpayers, I would be against it. As far as I am concerned, those who are needy, and cannot take care of themselves, are those who the kind hearted should take care of. That could be churches, or individuals, companies or what ever, but charity, is given, not coerced.

$1000 a month, sounds very high to me, the median household (not individuals) income worldwide, is $9,733. It is amazing that we (Americans) live in a place, where we can entertain the idea that each adult could get guaranteed 1.23 times as much as the average entire household does across the world. Our poor are relatively rich. I live in California, where it is not cheap, but our household income is not that high, that comes from my son and his job, and my social security check, plus a small pension that I paid into for many years. During my working career, I paid more to support those on Social Security, that I am likely to get back in my lifetime, but I am not complaining, it is enough, and good to have.

To my mind though, when the government gets involved in trying to do charity (taking care of others) by confiscation funds from the public, there are a couple of things wrong with that. First, last I read (which was a long time ago and may be better or worse now), was that for every dollar that the government collects for redistribution to the needy, twenty eight cents actually makes it to the beneficiary. I would hope that any charity that performed that poorly, would be investigated. Charities often manage in excess of a ninety cents on the dollar to the beneficiary, though of course not all do.

The second thing to my mind, is that when the government takes money from the citizens by threat of fines or imprisonment etc. it is taking money that does not belong to it in the first place. Robin Hod might have been a nice enough guy, but he was still a thief. Just because a government sanctions something, does not mean it is not a sin.

If we want to make sure that the needs of others are met, then we should do something about that, get involved, and not wait for the government to inefficiently redistribute money, that it likely will not hold people accountable for how it is spent, of if it does, will do so poorly.

[Debp]

I recall hearing that any Americans getting the UBI would not receive any welfare or food stamps.

My mother and I only get Social Security and she gets a very small pension ($64).   Being in expensive Los Angeles, rents are outpacing people's incomes.   So the UBI would help people here about rents.   But, of course, that is not what I base my vote on.

Btw, although people in the third world earn very little, their cost of living is usually very low.   That's why some Americans are retiring overseas.   Also, I know of three Guatemalans who worked in the USA and have now retired back in Guatemala, collecting Social Security.

[createdequal]

On 8/19/2019 at 9:54 PM, Debp said:

Thoughts on this?   $1,000 a month to all adult Americans.   Of course, I am voting for an entire platform (so voting President Trump).   But I find UBI rather interesting. 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/08/19/andrew-yang-on-google-amazon-helping-pay-for-his-ubi-plan.html

as per usual, the libs don't follow an idea out to its logical conclusion/consequences

Some people who are now poor and/or unemployed and even some who are employed and doing well would take that money and never work again. Can you imagine what the wolrd would look like? a 3rd world country. Of course, in lib-run states and cities, it already looks like 3rd world.. the homeless problem.. which is worse in those cities run by libs, though all cities have a homeless problem. 

Many Americans would say Hey, that is only enough to pay the rent, maybe not enough to support a car, much less a family, but what the heck? I can do w hatever I want.. I can be FREE.. 

free to do the devil's work.. "Idle hands" and all...

Among other consequences, we would  have an upsurge in crime.. 

Why not make sure everyone has a job, not income that is un-earned? Why not promise everyone a job instead? I don't think it is impossible to make sure that all are working..

Also, why would someone making $75,000 a year need another $1000 a month?

 

as pe usual, makes no sense.. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by createdequal
clarity

[createdequal]

On 8/20/2019 at 1:13 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

As long as universal basic income is paid for by people or entities which voluntarily give to that cause, fine. If this were a government program paid for by taxpayers, I would be against it. As far as I am concerned, those who are needy, and cannot take care of themselves, are those who the kind hearted should take care of. That could be churches, or individuals, companies or what ever, but charity, is given, not coerced.

$1000 a month, sounds very high to me, the median household (not individuals) income worldwide, is $9,733. It is amazing that we (Americans) live in a place, where we can entertain the idea that each adult could get guaranteed 1.23 times as much as the average entire household does across the world. Our poor are relatively rich. I live in California, where it is not cheap, but our household income is not that high, that comes from my son and his job, and my social security check, plus a small pension that I paid into for many years. During my working career, I paid more to support those on Social Security, that I am likely to get back in my lifetime, but I am not complaining, it is enough, and good to have.

To my mind though, when the government gets involved in trying to do charity (taking care of others) by confiscation funds from the public, there are a couple of things wrong with that. First, last I read (which was a long time ago and may be better or worse now), was that for every dollar that the government collects for redistribution to the needy, twenty eight cents actually makes it to the beneficiary. I would hope that any charity that performed that poorly, would be investigated. Charities often manage in excess of a ninety cents on the dollar to the beneficiary, though of course not all do.

The second thing to my mind, is that when the government takes money from the citizens by threat of fines or imprisonment etc. it is taking money that does not belong to it in the first place. Robin Hod might have been a nice enough guy, but he was still a thief. Just because a government sanctions something, does not mean it is not a sin.

If we want to make sure that the needs of others are met, then we should do something about that, get involved, and not wait for the government to inefficiently redistribute money, that it likely will not hold people accountable for how it is spent, of if it does, will do so poorly.

I agree. 

the beneficiaries of govt programs only get 28 cents per every tax payer dollar?

I'm surprised it is that much. People are making money off these gov programs but it certainly isn't the poor. The poor have to STAY poor in order for these programs to continue, and they WILL continue because others make good money off them.

[Willa]

I am not sure why millionaires should get medicare at this point.  My mother in law had all that plus medicare and could easily have paid her own medical bills.   I agree that it makes more sense to find people jobs, and that also gives them self respect for earning their own way.

[Heybro]

Though I'm not familiar with what happened in the U S, regarding your health system and social security, what came to mind was, what happens to the money collected from drug busts and illegal contraband etc? Could that not be placed into a fund that can help these folk financially, or am I too naive, just saying, my 2 bits.

[Omegaman 3.0]

23 minutes ago, Heybro said:

what happens to the money collected from drug busts and illegal contraband etc? Could that not be placed into a fund that can help these folk financially

The main thing about asking a question like that that comes to my mind is I have to wonder if in the mind of bureaucrats and politicians, will they start to concern themselves with how to increase crime when their programs need more funding?

[ChessPlayer]

UBI is an interesting concept that is rather future looking. I've heard a lot of commentators on both the left and the right express interest in the subject mostly due to the gradual and probably inevitable influence of machine learning in the workforce. Yang is very much in this technocratic mode of thinking. He argues that UBI will be necessary in a future where robots are doing a substantial part of the work. I would say this is likely true. However, the way that he is currently rolling it out has a lot of holes that people on both sides of the political aisle are concerned about. Notably, to receive UBI you need to give up claims on other benefits. Additionally, the cost is high of course and the way Yang funds it is going to be VAT (according to Yang) which is generally considered to be a regressive form of taxation (hurting those with less disposable income more). If he has added a different stream of income since I last heard him talk about UBI this could change my opinion but in general I think his current plan is not a particularly good form of UBI. 

TL,DR: UBI is a good idea for the future. Yang's plan needs more work.   

[Heybro]

I'm hearing what you are saying Omegaman, and you are probably right with the mindset of criminals today. Unfortunately, the moral fibre of society today is that the moral issues have all but disappeared, thanks to the prince of this world. It seems to be an ever revolving door to which there seems to be no end of spinning.